From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
Date: | 2011-02-20 03:52:32 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTini5VhdBCjBs3fBVPa-rNHvgX_qHaP0oA1JgQJE@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> First, we should be clear to explain that you are referring to the fact
> that the request
> synchronous_commit = off
> synchronous_replication = on
> makes no sense in the way the replication system is currently designed,
> even though it is a wish-list item to make it work in 9.2+
What exactly do you mean by "make it work"? We can either (1) wait
for the local commit and the remote commit (synchronous_commit=on,
synchronous_replication=on), (2) wait for the local commit only
(synchronous_commit=on, synchronous_replication=off), or (3) wait for
neither (synchronous_commit=off, synchronous_replication=off).
There's no fourth possible behavior, AFAICS.
The question is whether synchronous_commit=off,
synchronous_replication=on should behave like (1) or (3); AFAICS
there's no fourth possible behavior. You have it as #1; I'm arguing
it should be #3. I realize it's an arguable point; I'm just arguing
for what makes most sense to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-02-20 04:07:46 | Re: FDW API: don't like the EXPLAIN mechanism |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-02-20 03:31:46 | Re: work_mem / maintenance_work_mem maximums |